Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Catena
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study evaluated the application of a combined spatial multi-criteria evaluation model and deterministic
Received 5 September 2014 model for landslide susceptibility mapping in Deokjeok-ri Creek, located in the northeastern part of Korea. This
Received in revised form 26 November 2015 region has frequent shallow landslides often caused by intense rainfall on weathered granite soil slopes. This
Accepted 24 January 2016
study compared the predictive capability of two different models: a spatial multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE)
Available online 2 February 2016
model, which is a semi-quantitative model, and a shallow landslide stability (SHALSTAB) model, which is a
Keywords:
deterministic model used to produce shallow landslide susceptibility maps. For the SMCE model, input layers
Combined model of landslide causative factors (i.e., topographic, hydrological, soil, forest, and geological factors) were prepared
Deokjeok-ri Creek for pairwise comparison to obtain susceptibility weightage. For SHALSTAB, a digital elevation model was used
GIS to calculate slope and wetness indices. Field inventories were used to validate and combine the two models. A
Landslide susceptibility comparison of the susceptibility map obtained from the SMCE method with that obtained with the SHALSTAB
SHALSTAB method revealed that the total mismatch area between the two maps for all three susceptibility classes was
SMCE about 53%. Therefore, the two results were combined to improve the reliability of the susceptibility map. The
performance of the combined map was determined using the receiver operator curve (ROC). The area under
curve (AUC) revealed a success accuracy of 79.56%, and the predictive accuracy was 83.6%. These results
demonstrate that the combined model was more accurate than either individual model at delineating
landslide-prone areas of weathered granite soil slopes.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.01.022
0341-8162/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
126 A.M.S. Pradhan, Y.T. Kim / Catena 140 (2016) 125–139
2. Study area
Fig. 1. Location map of Deokjeok-ri. Fig. 3. Extreme rainfall on July 14 to 17 in Inje area.
A.M.S. Pradhan, Y.T. Kim / Catena 140 (2016) 125–139 127
Fig. 4. Picture with examples of different types of slope failure: a) Photo index. b, c) Bird's eye view of slope failure. d–f) Shallow slide and debris flow. g) Debris deposit.
The soils at the site are derived from weathered granite and exhibit a by infiltration of rainfall, which decreases matric suction and shear
wide range of conditions depending on the degree of weathering. They strength (Kim et al., 2004; Rahardjo et al., 2005).
range from soils close to weathered rock to those that contain fine sed- Typhoon Ewiniar, which made landfall in South Korea on 10 July
iment grains, such as silt and clay. Most subsurface soils are typically in 2006, helped bring record-breaking rainfall to the region. Fig. 2 shows
an unsaturated state, especially in mountainous areas, but when rain in- that the monthly precipitation in July 2006 was ~ 2.4 times greater
filtrates the ground, granite soils become partially or fully saturated. than the average monthly rainfall. Most of the residents in this area
This increases the fragility of the soil, as evidenced by grain breakage live near the main channel of Deokjeok-ri Creek, and the extreme
observed in grain-size analysis (Lee and de Freitas, 1989), resulting in rainfall in July 2006 resulted in 17 deaths and 12 missing in Inje County
significant loss of shear strength. Rainfall-induced landslides in this (Lee and Yoo, 2009). All residential areas were swept away by landslides
area are usually shallow failures on weathered granite slopes, especially and debris flows, which left survivors in the area isolated for three days
on initially unsaturated slopes. These slope failures are triggered mainly without assistance.
128 A.M.S. Pradhan, Y.T. Kim / Catena 140 (2016) 125–139
In the wake of Typhoon Ewiniar, the Inje area was subjected to produce a detailed and reliable landslide-inventory map of Deokjeok-
extreme rainfall from 14 to 17 July 2006. This rainfall was caused by ri Creek, extensive field surveys and observations were performed in
two effects: a rain front from North Korea and water vapor that devel- the study area. A total of 748 landslides were mapped and a simple ran-
oped in China due to Typhoon Bilis (Bae, 2007). The total rainfall from dom sampling technique was used for training (~90%) and validation
14 to 16 July 2006 was 402 mm. The maximum hourly rainfall intensity (~ 10%) data selection, as shown in Fig. 5. For validation of SHALSTAB
on 15 July was 62 mm/h, as shown in Fig. 3, and the maximum rainfall model, all 748 landslides were used.
over the 24-h period was 192 mm. Six disturbed and three undisturbed samples corresponding to
Fig. 4 shows the different types of slope failures observed in the shallow landslide scars were taken. Their grain-size distribution, bulk
study area: the most common failures were shallow landslides that and dry densities, unsaturated triaxial shear strength, and internal
sometimes resulted in debris flows during periods of intense rainfall. frictional angle were characterized using laboratory measurements.
The soil samples collected from the shallow landslides were residual
3. Method and materials soil deposits formed by weathering of the bedrock. Table 1 lists a
geotechnical database, and Table 2 lists the results of triaxial shear
3.1. Landslide inventory map and soil parameters tests. The cohesion was 2.14 kPa, and the internal frictional angle was
35.61°. Six permeability measurements were conducted at different
A landslide-inventory map is used to identify the location of previ- depths using a 2800K1 Guelph Permeameter and the constant head
ous landslides, along with their types and the time of their occurrences method. Table 3 lists the results of these measurements at the depths
(Wieczorek, 1984; Einstein, 1988; Soeters and van Westen, 1996). of 20, 40, and 60 cm. The residual deposits were highly permeable,
Landslide inventory maps can be prepared either by collecting historical and the average in situ permeability was 1.87 × 10−5 m/s.
information of individual landslide events or by consulting satellite im- Soil depth is an important factor in assessment of landslide instabil-
agery and aerial photographs coupled with field surveys using GPS. To ity, especially in infinite-slope stability analysis. It is often highly
variable and difficult to predict. Moreover, soil depth surveys are
Table 1 Table 2
Soil parameters of the Deokjeok-ri Creek area. Triaxial shear strength and frictional angle.
Table 5
Random consistency index (RI) (Saaty, 1980, 2000).
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.53 1.56 1.57 1.59
130 A.M.S. Pradhan, Y.T. Kim / Catena 140 (2016) 125–139
potential (Cooke and Doornkamp, 1990). The entire slope range in this higher, infiltration is lower and movement of surface flow is faster
study was divided into five categories: 0–15°, 15–25°, 25–35°, 35–45°, (Pachauri et al., 1998; Cevik and Topal, 2003). In this study, drainage
and N 45° (Fig. 6b). density was divided into four classes: b5 m/m 2 , 5–10 m/m 2 ,
Elevation is well known to influence a large number of biophysi- 10–15 m/m2, and N15 m/m2 (Fig. 7b).
cal parameters and anthropogenic activities. These conditions, in The stream power index (SPI) (Fig. 7c) is a measure of the erosive
turn, are likely to affect slope stability and generate slope failures power of water flow based on the assumption that discharge is
(Vivas, 1992). In the study area, elevation ranged from 195 to proportional to the specific catchment area (Moore et al., 1991).
1225 m. Elevation values were divided into six categories using Higher SPI values lead to an increased risk of slope erosion (Moore
intervals of 200 m (Fig. 6c). et al., 1991).
Slope shape acts as a concentrating or scattering factor, and A dimensionless sediment transport index (STI) was derived by con-
has a strong influence on slope stability in steep terrain and is a sidering the transport capacity limiting sediment flux and catchment
primary determinant of subsurface water in the landscape. There evolution erosion theories (Moore and Wilson, 1992). In this study,
are three basic slope units: (1) divergent or convex, (2) planar or STI was divided into four classes (Fig. 7d).
straight, and (3) convergent or concave. Generally, convex slopes The topographic wetness index (TWI) is an indicator of the spatial
are more stable because they disperse runoff more equally down distribution of soil moisture because groundwater flow often follows
the slope. Concave slopes are considered to be potentially unstable surface topography. In the present study, TWI was divided into three
because they concentrate water at the lowest point and contribute classes (Fig. 7e).
to the buildup of adverse hydrostatic pressure (Stocking, 1972) Soil drainage refers to the frequency and duration of periods when
(Fig. 6d). the soil is saturated with water. In the present study, soil drainage
characteristics (SDC) were classified into four categories: poorly
3.2.1.2. Hydrological factors. Infiltration of rainfall into soil and runoff drained, somewhat poorly drained, moderately drained, and well
are significant controlling factors of landslide occurrence, especially drained (Fig. 7f).
for rainfall-induced landslides on weathered granite soil slopes. In
watersheds, landslides frequently occur on stream banks. 3.2.1.3. Soil factors. Soil properties influence the rate of water move-
The proximity of a slope to a drainage structure is another important ment and the capacity of the soil to hold water. Under unsaturated
factor for instability. In this study, five different buffer zones were conditions, fine-textured soils tend to hold more water than
prepared from stream maps using the inverse distance-weighted inter- coarse-textured soils (Sidle et al., 1985). Based on soil classification
polation method: (i) 25 m, (ii) 25–50 m, (iii) 50–75 m, (iv) 75–100 m, guidelines from the United States Department of Agriculture
and (v) N100 m from the drainage (Fig. 7a). (USDA, 1993), the Deokjeok-ri Creek area is composed of five soil
Drainage density is the ratio of the total length of the stream types, shown in Fig. 8a. Most soil types at the study site were sandy
to the area of the drainage basin. When drainage densities are loam, consisting of forest soils. The downstream soil was silty clay
A.M.S. Pradhan, Y.T. Kim / Catena 140 (2016) 125–139 131
Fig. 7. Hydrological factors: a) Distance to drainage, b) drainage density, c) stream power index, d) sediment transport index, e) topographic wetness index and f) soil-drain character.
loam, and this area was mostly cropland. The northern and southern Soil depth influences the shear stress and shear strength of the slope
edges of the watershed were rocky due to high elevations and and is also associated with landslide volume. Generally, the deeper the
steep slopes. soil, the larger the moving mass will be. In this study, relative soil
depth was classified into the categories of shallow, moderate, or deep, as 3.2.1.5. Geological factors. Landslides are greatly affected by the litholog-
depicted in Fig. 8b. ical properties of a land surface. Because different lithological units have
different landslide susceptibility values, it is very important to consider
individual unit contributions when mapping susceptibility. As described
3.2.1.4. Forest factors. The Deokjeok-ri Creek area has four main forest earlier, the lithology of this area consists of Precambrian gneisses and
types: broadleaved forest (mostly Mongolian Oak), Japanese larch, Mesozoic granites, as shown in Fig. 10.
Japanese red pine, and Korean pine, along with non-forested areas
consisting mainly of cultivated land and soil deposits (Fig. 9a). 3.3. Shallow landslide stability (SHALSTAB) method
When an entire area is covered with vegetation, dramatic changes
in the size or age of the vegetation can help distinguish shear zones. SHALSTAB is a well-known physical-based model developed by
Disrupted sediment generally results in the growth of trees of similar Montgomery and Dietrich in 1994 (Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994).
age and hence size (McCalpin, 1974). Fig. 9b shows different categories The model performs an infinite-slope stability analysis assuming
of timber age in the study area. steady-state conditions. Their approach is based on the assumption
Table 6
The weight value for each group and causative factor using pair-wise comparison
for SMCE.
of gravity causes a downslope flow component. This lateral flow occurs where v′ is the normalized data matrix, v is the original data matrix, and
with any amount of rain and for both unsaturated and saturated soil U and L are the upper and lower normalization boundaries, respectively.
(Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994, Barling et al., 1994). One drawback v can be calculated as the ratio between area of landslide to the area
of this model is that it does not account for the uncertainty of input of the domain of class. v′ represents an approximation to the normal
parameters as in SINMAP (Pack and Tarboton, 2004) model by giving distribution of the probability.
the option of identifying an upper and lower range of values for
each variable. 4. Result and discussion
In this study to produce optimal landslide susceptibility zonation The SMCE model was evaluated using open source integrated land
map that obtained from SMCE and SHALSTAB models, a simple nor- and water information system (ILWIS) (Nijmeijer et al., 2001), a GIS
malized frequency ratio (NFR) model was applied as a bivariate environment. All comparisons were based on a pairwise method.
probability analysis. The susceptibility maps obtained from the Table 6 lists the resulting normalized weight values of the 15 CFs and
SMCE and SHALSTAB methods were considered as new input factors overall weight values. The resulting consistency ratio (CR) for the
to develop a combined landslide susceptibility map and using the pairwise comparison matrix for the 15 CF dataset layers was 0.0871,
detected landslide locations and the obtained susceptibility maps, indicating that the comparisons of characteristics were perfectly
the normalized frequency ratio (NFR) model was applied as a bivariate consistent and that the relative weights were appropriate for use in
probability analysis, as shown in Fig. 11. the susceptibility mapping.
area had critical rainfall b50 mm/day, 6.91% had critical rainfall of
50–100 mm/day, 11.87% of the area was categorized as unstable with
100–200 mm/day of critical rainfall, and 15.69% was delineated as
unstable with 200–400 mm/day. Similarly, 22.49% of the area was
identified as unstable with critical rainfall N400 mm/day. Also, 34.75%
of the area of the creek was found to be unconditionally stable.
The landslide density observed in each of the categories calculated
using SHALSTAB is depicted in Fig. 17. The SHALSTAB approach to insta-
bility modeling was quite successful in describing slope failure in the
study area, identifying 15.37% of 748 observed landslides in uncondi-
tionally unstable areas, 27.67% in regions with critical rainfall of
b50 mm/day, 18.98% in areas with critical rainfall of 50–100 mm/day,
18.45% in areas with critical rainfall of 100–200 mm/day, 11.9% in
areas with critical rainfall of 200–400 mm/day, and 4.81% of landslides
in areas with critical rainfall of N400 mm/day. The landslide density
was greater in areas of greater instability. The fact that 2.81% of
Fig. 16. Terrain area percent occupied by different susceptibility classes.
landslides occurred in areas that were identified as unconditionally
stable may be considered as a measure of the error in the model.
In order to produce a landslide susceptibility map with the SMCE, 4.3. Validation and comparison of models
the weights corresponding to parameters were multiplied by the
relevant parameter maps and then all the weighted parameters Validation is a fundamental step in the development of a landslide
were summed. The resulting weight index map showed the spatial susceptibility map. The performance of the two models can be
distribution of landslide susceptibility. Then, the weighted map determined using the receiver operator curve (ROC) technique. The
was divided into three susceptibility classes — low, moderate, and ROC is a useful method for representing the quality of deterministic
high — to aid visual interpretation as presented in Fig. 12. To obtain and probabilistic detection and forecast systems (Swets, 1988). The sus-
the classified susceptibility map, the distribution of the total weight ceptibility index (derived from SMCE and SHALSTAB) was reclassified
value was analyzed, and the values of the natural break were used. into two classes using cutoff values. A contingency table was derived
According to the map, 41.7% of the study area has low susceptibility for the specific cutoff by intersecting the susceptibility classes and
and approximately 27.3% of the total area has high susceptibility as presence/absence landslides. By changing the value of cutoff, it is possi-
shown in Fig. 13. ble to obtain different contingency tables that correspond to different
Fig. 14 presents the percentages of landslide occurrence for both the points on the ROC curve (SafeLand Deliverable D2.8, 2011). When
training and validation data under the different susceptibility classes. classifying a grid from the unstable map, four outcomes are possible
Overall, 46.67% of the training data landslides and 42.92% of the valida- (shown in Table 7): if landslides were observed in a cell that was calcu-
tion data landslides were in the high susceptibility class. The moderate lated to be unstable, this was considered a true positive (TP); if land-
susceptibility class included about 40% of the training data landslides slides were not observed in an area that was calculated to be unstable,
and 32.79% of the validation data landslides, and the low susceptibility it was considered a false positive (FP); if landslides were observed
class included 13.33% of the training data landslides and 24.29% of the in an area that was calculated to be stable, it was considered a false
validation data landslides. negative (FN); and if no landslides were observed in an area that was
calculated to be stable, it was considered a true negative (TN). The
4.2. Landslide susceptibility using SHALSTAB ROC was calculated by plotting the fraction of positive outcomes that
were correctly identified (i.e., the TNs) versus the fraction of positive
A susceptibility map was obtained using the SHALSTAB model, outcomes that were not correctly identified (i.e., the FNs). The area
shown in Fig. 15, includes seven classes that vary from unconditionally under the ROC (AUC) can be used as a metric to quantify the overall
unstable to unconditionally stable. Fig. 16 presents the landslide suscep- performance of the model such that the larger the area, the better the
tibility distribution calculated using SHALSTAB: A total of 2.4% of the performance of the model.
area was categorized as being unconditionally unstable, 5.88% of the For classifying the accuracy, the following ranking were considered
for the accuracy test given by Hosmer and Lemeshow (2000): 0.90–1
(excellent), 0.80–0.90 (good), 0.70–0.80 (fair), 0.60–0.70 (poor),
and 0.50–0.60 (fail).
Success rate results were obtained using the landslide grid cells in
the training dataset. Fig. 18 shows the success rate curves of the two
landslide susceptibility maps obtained from the SMCE and SHALSTAB
methods. For SMCE, the area under a curve is 0.6823, which means
that the overall success rate of the landslide susceptibility zonation
map is 68.23% and the success rate is poor. Then, the areas under the
Table 7
Parameters for the ROC curve calculation (modified from Swets, 1988).
Landslide occurrence based on model True positive (TP) False positive (FP)
Landslide free area based on model False negative (FN) True negative (TN)
Fig. 17. Percentage of landslide occurrences in each susceptibility class.
136 A.M.S. Pradhan, Y.T. Kim / Catena 140 (2016) 125–139
Fig. 20. Comparison between area occupied by SMCE and reclassified SHALSTAB models.
Fig. 21. Example showing a mismatch between the predicted landslide susceptibility.
For the three susceptibility classes, the perfect agreement area the reliability of the combined map. Of the training data landslides,
was 46.73% of the total area of the creek, and the total mismatch about 18.1% were in low susceptibility areas; 25.3% of the validation
was 53.27%. The specific susceptibility probability classes of the data landslides fell within this class.
SMCE map did not agree totally with the corresponding classes of The success rate result was obtained by comparing the landslide
the SHALSTAB map. The final susceptibility maps from the SMCE training data with the combined susceptibility map, as shown in
and SHALSTAB methods produced relatively similar results for Fig. 24. The area under curve (AUC) yielded a success accuracy of
the low susceptibility zone, but less agreement for the moderate 79.6% which means success rate is fair. Because the success rate method
susceptibility zone. This result occurred because the SMCE is based used the training landslide data that had already been used to build the
on AHP and the deterministic method is based on hydro-geotechnical landslide models, the success rate is not a suitable method for assessing
properties of soil. the prediction capability of the models (Bui et al., 2011). However, this
method is useful for determining the performance of the models. Thus,
4.4. Combining the SHALSTAB and SMCE models the combined map was validated using the prediction rate curve. The
prediction result was obtained by comparing the landslide validation
To improve the reliability of the susceptibility map, the results of the data with the combined susceptibility map. The AUC was calculated as
two models were combined. Table 9 lists the calculated normalized 83.6%, indicating that the prediction rate is good. This result indicates
weightage, the high classes have high weightage. The landslide suscep- that the susceptibility map obtained by the combined approach
tibility map obtained by combing these two methods was categorized was reasonably accurate at predicting the landslide susceptibility of
into low, moderate, and high susceptibility zones using natural break Deokjeok-ri Creek. The combined approach yielded much higher
of weight value distribution. Fig. 22 presents this resulting landslide accuracy than either individual model.
susceptibility map: 35.8% of the area was categorized as having low
susceptibility, 34.5% was categorized as moderately susceptible, and
the remaining 29.7% was considered to have high susceptibility. Analy- 5. Conclusions
sis of the landslide distribution with respect to the susceptibility classes
was an important part of this study, so a landslide density analysis was To predict future shallow landslides at Deokjeok-ri Creek, landslide
performed on the three susceptibility classes. An ideal landslide suscep- susceptibility mapping was performed using the SMCE and SHALSTAB
tibility map has landslide density values that increase from a lower to a methods. The SMCE was applied and a landslide susceptibility map
higher susceptibility class. Fig. 23 plots the landslide densities for the was prepared using the result of a combination of 15 causative factors
three landslide susceptibility classes of the combined model. For the responsible for landslide susceptibility. In the SMCE, the results indicat-
landslides used as training data, landslide density gradually increased ed that the area identified as zones of high susceptibility accounted for
from lower to higher susceptibility classes. About 82.2% of the training 27.3% of the total hillslope area. About 86.67% of the training data
data landslides were located in the high and moderate susceptibility landslides and 75.71% of the validation data landslides occurred in
classes, and 74.7% of the validation data landslides were identified as high and moderate susceptibility zones, respectively.
having the same class as that projected by the model, demonstrating Seven different instability classes based on the Q parameter were
calculated in SHALSTAB. Approximately 34.75% of the entire study
area was calculated as unconditionally stable. When the map from the
SHALSTAB method was crossed with the map obtained from SMCE,
Table 8 46.73% of the total area was in perfect agreement. Because the SMCE is
Spatially agreed area between landslide susceptibility maps obtained from SHALSTAB
and SMCE.
Fig. 23. Area occupied by susceptibility classes and densities of landslide. Fig. 24. Accuracy assessment of combined model.
A.M.S. Pradhan, Y.T. Kim / Catena 140 (2016) 125–139 139
References Molteni, F., Buizza, R., Palmer, T.N., Petroliagis, T., 1996. The ECMWF ensemble prediction
system: methodology and validation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 122 (529), 73–119.
Abella, E.A.C., van Westen, C.J., 2007. Generation of a landslide risk index map for Cuba Molteni, F., Buizza, R., Marsigli, C., Montani, A., Nerozzi, F., Paccagnella, T., 2001.
using spatial multi-criteria evaluation. Landslides 4, 311–325. A strategy for high-resolution ensemble prediction. Part I: definition of represen-
Akgün, A., Sezer, E.A., Nefeslioglu, H.A., Gokceoglu, C., Pradhan, B., 2012. An easy-to-use tative members and global model experiments. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 127,
MATLAB program (MamLand) for the assessment of landslide susceptibility using a 2069–2094.
mamdani fuzzy algorithm. Comput. Geosci. 38 (1), 23–34. Montgomery, D.R., Dietrich, W.E., 1994. A physically based model for the topographic
Armas, I., 2011. An analytic multicriteria hierarchical approach to assess landslide control on shallow landsliding. Water Resour. Res. 30, 1153–1171.
vulnerability, case study: Cornu village, subcarpathian Prahova Valley/Romania. Z. Moore, I.D., Wilson, J.P., 1992. Length–slope factors for the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Geomorphol. 55, 209–229. Equation: simplified method of estimation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47, 423–428.
Bae, S., 2007. Cause analysis of 2006 concentrated heavy rain which occurred in Inje-gun. Moore, I.D., Grayson, R.B., Ladson, A.R., 1991. Digital terrain modeling: a review
Korean Assoc. Reg. Geog. 13 (4), 396–408. of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrol. Process.
Barling, R.D., Moore, I.D., Grayson, R.B., 1994. A quasi-dynamic wetness index for 5, 3–30.
characterizing the spatial distribution of zones of surface saturation and soil water Neuhauser, B., Damm, B., Terhorst, B., 2012. GIS-based assessment of landslide suscepti-
content. Water Resour. Res. 30 (4), 1029–1044. bility on the base of the weights-of-evidence model. Landslides 9 (4), 511–528.
Brabb, E.E., 1984. Innovative approaches to landslide hazard mapping. Proceedings 4th Nijmeijer, R., de Haas, A., Dost, R.J.J., Budde, P.E., 2001. Ilwis 3.0 Academic User's Guide.
International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto 1 pp. 307–324. ITC, Enschede.
Bui, D.T., Pradhan, B., Lofman, O., Revhaug, I., Dick, O.B., 2011. Landslide susceptibility O'Loughlin, E.M., 1986. Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural catchments by
mapping at Hoa Binh province (Vietnam) using an adaptive neuro fuzzy inference topographic analysis. Water Resour. Res. 22 (5), 794–804.
system and GIS. Comput. Geosci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.10.031 Pachauri, A.K., Gupta, P.V., Chander, R., 1998. Landslide zoning in a part of the Garhwal
(article on-line first available). Himalayas. Environ. Geol. 36 (3–4), 325–334.
Cevik, E., Topal, T., 2003. GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping for a problematic seg- Pack, R., Tarboton, D., 2004. Stability index mapping (SINMAP) applied to the prediction
ment of the natural gas pipeline, Hendek (Turkey). Environ. Geol. 44 (8), 949–962. of shallow translational landsliding. Geophys Res Abstracts 6, 05122.
Chen, G., Meng, X., Tan, L., Zhang, F., Qiao, L., 2014. Comparison and combination of Pourghasemi, H.R., 2008. Landslide Hazard Assessment Using Fuzzy Logic (Case Study:
different models for optimal landslide susceptibility zonation.quarterly. J. Eng. Geol. A Part of Haraz Watershed) M.Sc. Thesis Tarbiat Modarres University International
Hydrogeol. 47 (4), 283–306. Campus, Iran (92 pp.).
Chirico, G.B., Grauspm, R.B., Western, A.W., 2003. On the computation of the Pradhan, A.M.S., Kim, Y.T., 2014. Relative effect method of landslide susceptibility
quasi-dynamic wetness index with multiple-flow-direction algorithm. Water zonation in weathered granite soil: a case study in Deokjeok-ri Creek, South Korea.
Resour. Res. 39 (5), 1115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001754. Nat. Hazard 72, 1189–1217.
Choi, J., Oh, H.J., Lee, H.J., Lee, C., Lee, S., 2012. Combining landslide susceptibility maps Pradhan, B., Lee, S., 2009. Landslide risk analysis using an artificial neural network model
obtained from frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network focusing on different training sites. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 3 (11), 1–15.
models using ASTER images and GIS. Eng. Geol. 124, 12–23. Pradhan, B., Pirasteh, S., 2010. Comparison between prediction capabilities of neural
Chung, Y.S., Yoon, M.B., Kim, H.S., 2004. On climate variations and changes observed in network and fuzzy logic techniques for landslide susceptibility mapping. Disaster
South Korea. Clim. Chang. 66 (1–2), 151–161. Adv. 3 (3), 26–34.
Cooke, R.U., Doornkamp, J.C., 1990. Geomorphology in Environmental Management: Pradhan, A.M.S., Dawadi, A., Kin, Y.T., 2012. Use of different bivariate statistical landslide
A New Introduction. second ed. Claren don Press, Oxford (xxiv +410 pp.). susceptibility methods: a case study of Kulekhani watershed, Nepal. J. Nepal Geol.
Crosta, G.B., Dal Negro, P., Frattini, P., 2003. Soil slips and debris flows on terraced slopes. Soc. 45, 1–12.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 3, 31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-3-31-2003. Rahardjo, H., Lee, T., Leong, E.C., Rezaur, R.B., 2005. Response of a residual soil slope to
Dahal, R.K., Hasegawa, S., Bhandary, N.P., Poudel, P.P., Nonomura, Y.R., 2012. A replication rainfall. Can. Geotech. J. 42 (2), 340–351.
of landslide hazard mapping at catchment scale. Geomatics Nat. Hazard. Risk 3, Rossi, M., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., Mondini, A.C., Peruccacci, S., 2010. Optimal
161–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2011.629007. landslide susceptibility zonation based on multiple forecasts. Geomorphology 114
Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., Ngai, Y.Y., 2002. Landslide risk assessment and management: an (3), 129–142.
overview. Eng. Geol. 64 (1), 65–87. Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol.
Dietrich, W.E., Montgomery, D.R., 1998. SHALSTAB: A Digital Terrain Model for Mapping 15, 234–281.
Shallow Landslide Potential. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~geomorph/shalstab/. Saaty, T., 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Dietrich, W.E., Sitar, N., 1997. Geoscience and geotechnical engineering aspects of debris- Saaty, T.L., 2000. second ed. The Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory
flow hazard assessment, invited overview paper. In: Chen, C.-L. (Ed.), Debris-Flow with the Analytic Hierarchy Process vol VI. RWS Publications, Pittsburg (478 pp.).
Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and AssessmentProceedings of the First SafeLand: Deliverable 2.8, 2011. Recommended Procedures for Validating Landslide
Int. Conf.ASCE, San Francisco, pp. 656–676. Hazard and Risk Models and Maps.
Dietrich, W.E., Reiss, R., Hsu, M., Montgomery, D.R., 1995. A process-based model for Sharifi, M.A., Retsios, V., 2003. Site selection for waste disposal through spatial multiple
colluvial soil depth and shallow landsliding using digital elevation data. Hydrol. criteria decision analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Decision
Process. 9, 383–400. Support for Telecommunications and Information Society DSTIS, 4–6 September
Einstein, H.H., 1988. Special lecture: landslide risk assessment procedure. Proceedings of 2003, Warsaw, Poland (15 pp. — Includes a case study).
5th Symposium on Landslides, Lausanne vol. 2 pp. 1075–1090 (July 1988). Sidle, R.C., Ochiai, H., 2006. Landslides: Processes, Prediction, and Land Use vol. 18.
Ercanoglu, M., Gokceoglu, C., Van Aseh, W., 2004. Landslide susceptibility zoning north of American Geophysical Union.
Yenice (NW Turkey) by multivariate statistical techniques. Nat. Hazards 32, 1–32. Sidle, R.C., Pearce, A.J., Loughlin, C.L.O., 1985. Hillslope Stability and Land-Use. American
Goetz, J.N., Guthrie, R.H., Brenning, A., 2011. Integrating physical and empirical landslide Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, USA (125 pp.).
susceptibility models using generalized additive models. Geomorphology 129, Soeters, R., Van Westen, C.J., 1996. Slope instability recognition, analysis and zonation. In:
376–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.03.001. Turner, A.K., Schuster, R.L. (Eds.), Landslides, Investigation and Mitigation,
Gomez, H., Kavzoglu, T., 2005. Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility using Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report 247.
artificial neural networks in Jabonosa River Basin, Venezuela. Eng. Geol. 7, 11–27. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., U.S.A., pp. 129–177.
Gupta, R.P., Kanungo, D.P., Arora, M.K., Sarkar, S., 2008. Approaches for comparative Soil Survey Staff, 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. US Department of
evaluation of raster GIS-based landslide susceptibility zonation maps. Int. J. Appl. Agriculture Handbook 18 (Archived from the original on 2006-02-14. Retrieved
Earth Obs. Geoinf. 10, 330–341. 2006-07-02).
Hosmer, D., Lemeshow, S., 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. second ed. Wiley, Stocking, M.A., 1972. Relief analysis and soil erosion in Rhodesia using multivariate
New York, p. 392. techniques. Z. Geomorphol. 16, 432–443.
Kayastha, P., Dhital, M.R., de Smedt, F., 2012. Evaluation of the consistency of landslide Swets, J.A., 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240, 1285–1293.
susceptibility mapping: a case study from the Kankai watershed in east Nepal. Tangestani, M.H., 2009. A comparative study of Dempster–Shafer and fuzzy models for
Landslides 10 (6), 785–799. landslide susceptibility mapping using a GIS: an experience from Zagros Mountains,
Kim, J., Jeong, S., Park, S., Sharma, J., 2004. Influence of rainfall induced wetting on the SW Iran. J. Asian Earth Sci. 35 (1), 66–73.
stability of slopes in weathered soils. Eng. Geol. 75 (3–4), 251–262. Terlien, M.T.J., Van Westen, C.J., Van Asch, T., 1995. Deterministic modelling in
Lee, S.G., de Freitas, M.H., 1989. A revision of the description and classification of weathered GIS-based landslide hazard assessment. In: Carrara, A., Guzzetti, F. (Eds.),
granite and its application to granites in Korea. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 22, 31–48. Geographical Information Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards. Kluwer,
Lee, S., Pradhan, B., 2006. Probabilistic landslide risk mapping at Penang Island, Malaysia. Dordrecht, pp. 57–77.
J. Earth Syst. Sci. 115 (6), 661–672. van Westen, C.J., Rengers, N., Soeters, R., 2003. Use of geomorphological information in
Lee, S., Pradhan, B., 2007. Landslide hazard mapping at Selangor, Malaysia, using frequen- indirect landslide susceptibility assessment. Nat. Hazards 30, 399–419.
cy ratio and logistic regression models. Landslides 4 (1), 33–41. Vivas, L., 1992. Los Andes Venezolanos. Academia Nacional de la Historia, Caracas (300 pp.).
Lee, C., Yoo, N., 2009. A study on debris flow landslide disasters and restoration at Inje in Wieczorek, G.F., 1984. Preparing a detailed landslide-inventory map for hazard evaluation
Kangwon Province, Korea. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitigation 9 (1), 99–105. and reduction. Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 21 (3), 337–342.
Marsigli, C., Montani, A., Nerozzi, F., Paccagnella, T., Tibaldi, S., Molteni, F., Buizza, R., 2001. Wilcock, P.R., Schmidt, J.C., Wolman, M.G., Dietrich, W.E., Dominick, D.W., Doyle, M.W.,
A strategy for high resolution ensemble prediction. Part II: Limited area experiments Gordon, E.G., Iverson, R.M., Montgomery, D.R., Pierson, T.C., Schilling, S.P., Wilson,
in four Alpine flood events. Quart. J. Meteorol. Soc. 127, 2095–2116. R.C., 2003. When models meet managers: examples from geomorphology. In:
McCalpin, J., 1974. Preliminary Age Classification of Landslides for Inventory Mapping, Wilcock, P.R., Iverson, R.M. (Eds.), Prediction in Geomorphology, American
21st Annual Symposium on Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering. Proceedings. Geophysical Union Monogragh Series 135, pp. 27–40.
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA, pp. 99–111.